BARKHU RAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Vijay Gautam learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

(2.) THE petitioner who is constable in civil police has filed this petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh dismissing him from service exercising powers conferred by Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Sub-ordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1991'). Writ of mandamus has also been prayed for to command the respondents to pay all consequential benefits including arrears of salary. The order of dismissal was passed by the Superintendent of Police dispensing with the departmental inquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry for the reason that the petitioner was earlier suspended on the allegation of some scuffle between him and Om prakash on 20.5.2003 and was later on reinstated. He again misbehaved with the clerk and other assistant clerks in the department for which a case was registered against him under Section 352, 504 & 506 I.P.C. read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 29 of the Police Act and he was arrested and sent to jail. Further allegations are that on 11.5.2007 he misbehaved with the Additional Superintendent of Police and was again suspended and was reinstated on 14.9.2007. On 18.12.2007 he again misbehaved with A.S.I. for which he was awarded a censor entry to be recorded in his service record. It is further stated in the order that on 10.6.2008 he was found wandering in a confused state near the Chief Minister's residence. He was sent for medical examination and was diagnosed to be suffering from mental disease and since he is habitual of misbehaving with other police personnel his retention in public service shall tarnish the image of the police force in the eyes of general public.

(3.) THE sole question for consideration in the case is as to whether the order of dismissal fulfills the conditions precedent before passing the order prescribed by the Rules of 1991. The relevant Rule 8 of Rules 1991 reads as under :